By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, May 3, 2024

HARRISBURG, Pa.  —   It has been three weeks since Rusty Herr and Ethan Wentworth of NoBull Solutions, LLC were arrested on April 10 and 11 and separately incarcerated in Lancaster and York County Prisons — their respective counties of residence in Pennsylvania.

A motion for immediate release has been heard and denied by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

“The Commonwealth Court failed to correct their error, so we are taking the case directly to the Supreme Court,” said Robert Barnes, Esq. in a Farmshine interview after the decision.

Judge Michael Wojcik also unsealed the docket in a separate decision.

He heard oral arguments for the motion filed by Barnes Law LLP on behalf of Herr and Wentworth as well as the answer to this request by the Department of State (DOS) Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs (BPOA) on April 29, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. via WebEx video conferencing.

According to the docket 325-MD-2021, the BPOA opposed the motion, stating that on May 16, 2023, the court had adjudicated NoBull Solutions in contempt of a previous order dated Nov. 30, 2021, related to enforcement of an investigative subpoena, with conditions for NoBull to purge its contempt through a monetary civil penalty, and that failure to purge may result in issuance of a warrant for their arrest and incarceration.

NoBull Solutions did not show cause why they should not be held in contempt on Nov. 30, 2021, did not appear or comply, and on May 16, 2023, the enforcement order was made absolute requiring NoBull to “purge its contempt,” including providing the BPOA with the name and address of its custodian of records as well as the names and addresses of all members, managers, and other persons who direct its activities.

“At no point during these proceedings has Mr. Wentworth and Mr. Herr challenged BPOA’s allegations that they are the principal members of NoBull Solutions and are directing its activities or made any attempt to purge the Court’s finding of contempt,” the docket reads.

The bottomline here is that Herr and Wentworth are making a stand for the right to assist farms in reproductive management. Through the 15 phone calls from customers, it’s clear they believe ultrasound makes breeding service more effective and efficient for their small farms that are not in a position to be blessed by the law’s exception for hired employees doing this work on larger farms.

Dairy farmers have continued to call into this reporter, explaining that both men, and NoBull collectively, help them be better managers and learn to do more breeding work on their own, even when it means they are purchasing fewer services from NoBull. 

Fully 12 of the 15 calls to-date affirmed they maintain a relationship and regular herd checks with their licensed veterinarians and gave clear examples of how the use of ultrasound with breeding service through NoBull had minimized their waste of costly semen, improved their knowledge, and provided information they needed for timely breeding and culling decisions made on the farm in between regular herd checks.

At issue for Herr and Wentworth, according to Barnes Law, are the Constitutional rights in the handling of the contempt enforcement. With the docket unsealed, a paper trail – including the state’s request for a default judgment that had been denied in 2021 – have been unsealed. 

The initiation of these previously sealed contempt proceedings began in 2021, 18 months after the 2020 Pennsylvania Veterinary Medical Association complaint that had requested contempt charges be pursued by the DOS, alleging both men as principals in NoBull Solutions LLC were continuing to practice veterinary medicine without a license, continuing to do and direct ultrasounding of livestock in connection with their breeding and reproductive management services. 

At this juncture, it appears that Herr and Wentworth will either have their appeal for immediate release heard by the State Supreme Court or serve out their 30 days, whichever happens first.

Then, the real work may begin. Is there a middle ground for these services in conjunction with breeding? Is the assistance providing a level playing field in a low-margin, highly competitive dairy industry where scale affords some farms the avenues to accomplish these services via employees who are proficient in ultrasound vs. smaller farms paying an independent technician for the same.

Since the Department of State maintained in a prior interview that State Veterinary Board adjudications clarify the law with the authority granted them by the legislature, and that the legislature is the body to consult for the exceptions, there’s much here to wade through from the State Capitol to the Administrative Boards and Offices to the Commonwealth Court.

-30-